DaveCullen.com
                       HOME       COLUMBINE       BIO       STORIES       TV / TOUR       BLOG      

                       — My Blog: Conclusive Evidence of My Existence —

Monday, September 07, 2009


Thanks for making me legal

JUNE 4, 2009 5:08PM

Gay activists have learned a few things over the years. A big one, which took awhile, seems obvious in retrospect: when someone helps us, thank them!

We do quite a bit demanding, cajoling, and what sounds to some like complaining. We have to. As long as we're treated second-class, we can't keep our mouths shut. 

So it's important to balance that with some attaboys whenever people deserve them.

And God do the governor and legislators in New Hampshire deserve them right now.

(Yesterday, they became the sixth state in the country to equalize marriage for everyone, including gays.)

So take a moment, if you can. HRC has made it very easy. Just click and you'll go to a single screen where you can add your info, click OK and be in and out in well under 30 seconds. (They have a pre-written msg which you can keep, edit or replace entirely. It will take a little longer if you compose your own.)

Here's what I wrote. You're free to crib from it if you like:

Subject:  Thanks for making me legal

I am so grateful, and so proud of you for making me equal under the law. It's humiliating to be treated second class, and I thank God for creating fair and wise people like you who can see that.

I hope to get married some day, and I'm gay, so marrying a woman would be a sham, and would just destroy her life as well as mine. It's not a viable option. But I do want to get married, to another man, and by the time I'm ready, I hope to be able to do so anywhere I choose in our great country.

You have created another free state in New Hampshire. You have helped gather momentum toward a free country.

History will look kindly on you. I look kindly on you right now.


             Comment                                         5:12:20 PM                                           trackback []        




Equality for gays: It's up to CA voters again

MAY 26, 2009 1:29PM

So it's official. SF Chronicle headline:

Calif upholds gay marriage ban.

Damn. Expected, but still sad, still frustrating, still infuriating.

At least they left the 18,000 marriages intact.

So it's going to be up to you California voters again, to right the horrible wrong you collectively did last fall.

And it will be up to gay leaders to do a much better job, particularly working inside minority communities. Hopefully they can get it on the ballot in 2010. That actually seems like a long wait, but it's a long struggle.We've waited a long time already.

California voters need to get with the program--and join the 21st century--and allow equal rights for everyone. It's not really that hard.


             Comment                                         4:37:57 PM                                           trackback []        



Wednesday, January 28, 2009


I like Ted Haggard

Mostly. I like Ted despite statements like this on Ophah today:

"I'm a heterosexual with issues."

Ted. Please. From what you've described, bi, maybe. Probably gay, but I've never been in your head, so who knows. But I guy who has spent his whole life yearning for sex with men, is not heterosexual, with or without issues.

And by the way, "issues"? That's a really annoying way to put it.

I like Ted anyway, because he's struggling, he's trying, I believe he's sincere, and he's getting there.

I like him for saying that he spent most of his life believing the gay urges were a demon inside him, and he finally accepted "This is not a deamon. This is me."

"When I said 'This is me," Oh! So all of a sudden, everything started to change, and that's when I started to heal."

Oh, for his Evangelical constituency to hear just that one reflection alone, to hear it and take it in. It's not a demon. It's just who some of us are. God made us that way. No big deal.

Unfortunately, Ted can't quite get to the no big deal part. He has reached the point of saying that it's OK to be gay, but he hasn't internalized that belief to the point that he'll admit that he's one of those homos--or even bisexuals. Still a big dose of self-loathing in there, clearly.

But show me a homo who didn't face years of self-loathing. It takes a lot of us decades to get over, sometimes a lifetime, often that's not enough. He's been facing it for two years. Give him a break.

Two years, that's that thing. I caught myself a couple times chastising him, saying, "For God's sake, Ted, you've had two years." How easily we forget. I had a seven year "experimenting" and bi period. And I was 28 before I got that far. And my case is not unusual. Very easy to judge now that I'm on the other side and cool with it.

(Of course Ted was experimenting long before two years ago, but he was not dealing with it.) Two years, not so long.

At least he's gotten to this point: Oprah asked if he thought he was cured, and he said, "I don't think I'm cured, because I don't think I was ever sick."

That's a big freaking step. 

I also realize that he took a marriage oath with his wife and he's trying to honor it: to be a part-time straightguy for her if he can. What they don't seem to face is that oath was based on a big fat lie that he probably can't live up to. Maybe they can, but what they described on the showdid not sound plausible. (If what's really happening is that Ted is going into the bathroom and jacking off to gay porn, or just his own gay fantasies several times a week, and then accepting celibacy on the sex life he craves and making do with it with her . . . OK. But is that really accepting who you are and living your life to its fullest? Or is that trapping both people into a terrible compromise?)

I like his wife Gayle even more. I really liked her honestly on the show, and she and I have mutual friends who assure me that's the real Gayle. And their two adult kids were impressive, too.

Gayle, however, seems to be  deepest in delusion. Several times she tried to make the point that urges don't have to define you--you can make choices. Of course that's true about drug addiction, stealing . . . bad choices. But choose to deny your own sexuality? You can, but is that actually a good choice?

Which brings us to Oprah, my hero of the day. She did a masterful job with this interview, as she nearly always does. (If you still think Oprah is a lightweight--when was the last time you watched Oprah? Yes, she does some lightweight pop-star shows. Those are lightweight. They pay the bills. Different story.)

Gayle returned the theme and said, "You can still make choices, though. Even though there are those inclinations, waht you do, what you act on--"

Oprah cut her off that time, vigorously shaking her head. "I'm not agreeing with you on that. I'm not going there with you Gayle."

Thank you!

Gayle's situation seems kind of sad. I do believe she and Ted love each other, and can probably remain good friends and co-parents, and perhaps even have some sort of marriage. But her characterization was that she can have a gay or bi husband and he can just shut off the gay part and repress it and act like a straightguy and everything will be just fine. Good luck with that.

She kept pressing, and Oprah refused to back down:

"I don't know--this is the one thing I don't know: what it would feel like to even have an inclination to be gay. But I have a lot of friends who are gay, and have known they were gay since they were little people, and that is who they are. So to deny that part of yourself, I think is wrong. I think that God doesn't want you to deny who you are."

That is about the finest statement I have ever heard concerning gay people.

Thank you, Oprah.


             Comment                                         6:00:54 PM                                           trackback []        



Monday, October 18, 2004


Gay penguins

Ahhhhh, The Daily Show.

Just when I'm hit my gloomiest over what feels like a tidal wave of anti-gay sentiment, including Day Five of the Mary Cheney hostage crisis*--which reveals such an undercurrent of gay hostility and apprehension I had lost sight of--and Salon's latest cover story, Homosexuals Are Hellbound! about all the anti-gay state constitutional amendments on the Nov ballot, and the horror show it's producing in Ohio, and then I flip on my Tivo for a little light viewing while I do the dishes.

It seems Samantha B (Bee?) has discovered a gaping loophole in all these amendments outlawing gay marriage. Roy and Siloh have been cohabiting together for five years. Openly. In Central Park.

They live in the zoo. They're penguins. There are three gay couples living there, among the penguins. Countless other animals.

"Just because it happens in nature, does not make it natural," Samatha Bee snapped at the zookeeper.

"Ummmmm." It took him awhile to get the words out, but eventually he responded, "I think by definition, that actually does."

She also points out the obvious dangers. Penguins are already dressed in tuxedos, just like grooms. So if kids believe penguins can be gay, then so can grooms. And then what's to stop groom and penguin marraiges?" Heeheehee. I won't even try to describe the animation, of penguin and groom joining hands.

I feel better already.

Hopefully none of these amendments will be wielded against Roy and Siloh. They will continue living blissfully onward, just as God intended.

*I stole that hostage-crisis line from Salon.


             Comment                                         3:17:35 PM                                           trackback []        



Thursday, October 14, 2004


My Salon piece on Mary Cheney

The Mary Cheney controverys. Ugh.

Lynne Cheney acted disgracefully towards her daughter last night in a public political forum, and to my knowledge, no one in the mainstream press has called her on it. (Please jump in to correct me.)

Instead, they've been piling on to Kerry. Huh?

This one really got under my skin, so I wrote a piece for Salon about it and it has just posted:

John Kerry's lesbian moment

The problem seems to be a supreme lack of insight by straight people into the way gays respond to public references to their sexuality. Apparently, straight people think we cringe. That's what makes us (gays) cringe.

What's astonishing to me that none of the news organizations today seemed to check in with any gay people on this. Read the Times piece for tomorrow's paper, and you'll find the same complete failure to consider the point of view of the people they're writing about.

It has been nice to see a slew of bloggers calling the Cheney's on the hypocrisy of their charge, and Andrew Sullivan in particular has been leading the charge with a stream of dead-on entries that seek to bridge the yawning gap between straights and gays on this.

I hope my piece will too. It's a little angry in places, because I was freaking angry, but I tried to get the point across about how homos tend to look at this issue.

Update:

Thanks to Atrios for linking to the CNN poll--their front page poll, for God's sake--on this "issue," and for the hysterical "Sisters" cover. (And for the link to my story.)

So here's the CNN poll question of the day:

Do you think Sen. John Kerry went too far when he mentioned VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter in Wednesday's debate?

Huh. Did it ever occur to them to ask:

Do you think Lynne Cheney went too far when she publicly humiliated her own daughter at a campaign rally just for being a lesbian?

Amazing how they are framing this faux controversy.

Atrios also asks a crucial question:

Given the recent events, and the lack of response from Mary Cheney, our TV media should ask itself a reasonable question -- how many out gay people are regular anchors/pundits/correspondents/commentators on CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/FOX?

Didn't these news outfits have just one gay person on their staff they could have asked about this? Who could have told them they had framed the entire controversy backwards?

Update 2:

One of the joys of publishing on Salon is the instant feedback--from a really intelligent pool of readers. But I don't ever remember a piece generating so many that were so moving. This issue has touched a lot of gay people more than I even realized.

And some straight people.

I got an incredible one from an actual church lady in Idaho, but I want to get her permission before posting.


             Comment                                         9:48:52 PM                                           trackback []        



Friday, August 13, 2004


No way out but the cliff?

Arianna Huffington just posted an incredible column about New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey coming out and resigning.

It thoughtful and articulate throughout, but it also raised an idea I had not considered, but seems so obvious in retrospect:

It's hard to resist playing armchair psychoanalyst and wondering: Did McGreevey unconsciously make certain choices -- like putting his lover on the government payroll in a high-profile position he was not qualified for -- in order to force upon himself Thursday's public announcement: "I am a gay American"?

Of course that's really dangerous, but the more I sat there pondering it, I wish she had continued that line of thought. And then I read on. And she did:

We can't, of course, know what was going on in McGreevey's psyche, but hiring his lover, Golan Cipel -- an Israeli foreign national unable to obtain a federal security clearance to be the homeland security czar of New Jersey (and at a salary of $110,000 a year, no less) -- is the height of recklessness, and only makes sense as a taxpayer-funded cry for help. Clearly no good could come of such an appointment -- unless the governor was unconsciously hoping that the appointment would eventually force his hand.

The reason this idea has such a hold of me, is because I've seen it play out that way so many times. With homosexuality in particular, and characteristics we're ashamed of in general. We just can't bring ourselves to admit them, so we force ourselves into a situation to get them out.

I know one guy whose girlfriend found some embarassing photos, and the poor little weasel--after squirming and denying awhile, finally latched onto a better idea. He suggested she talk it through with his mom, who had a similar reaction, and was the one person who could empathize. The girlfriend made the call. His mom knew nothing. Until the call. His dad drove all the way from Seattle to Denver to get him.

The things we'll do to free ourselves of the bondage. It seems so silly in retrospect, because the weight we were dragging around looks so puny now that we have unloaded it and see it for the ghost it always was. But on our backs . . .

Here's how Arianna begins to wrap it up:

By the time the curtain comes up on this drama’s Act Five we could be in the middle of a serious political scandal that may force McGreevey to step down even before Nov. 15. Or we may be in the middle of his political resurrection, looking not at a tortured politician with a secret draining away precious energy but a free man fully -- and finally -- accepting himself. Either way, he had to practically drive the car right off the cliff in order to put himself on the road to Thursday’s declaration. And that's an indictment of our society and our political culture wars.

Man, she sure knows how it feels. (Except, "practically" off the cliff? As far as his career goes, not to mention his marriage--pretty much everything he ever dreamed of, he's crashing into the jagged rocks right now. But better that than up on that horrible cliff.

Of course she gets it, her husband came out. And for every one of us, I think it feels that way: driving the car right off the cliff is the only way to get there.


             Comment                                         9:17:34 PM                                           trackback []        



Thursday, August 12, 2004


Tough day for homos

First the California Supreme Court annulled all those gay marriages performed in San Francisco, now the governor of New Jersey has resigned because he was gay.

What? Resigned because he was gay? And had an affair? That one doesn't quite make sense. Surely there's more to come out. Politicians admit to affairs all the time, and I can't remember one resigning over it.

I'm not sure what the silver lining is here--another signal to straight people that there are gays hiding among us all over the place? That lots of normal people they respecte enough to elect governor are gay?

Or perhaps just one more indication for arch-conservatives trying to stamp out homosexuality--or whatever it is they think they're doing; "discouraging" it?--of what they're really accomplishing: Persuading gay men to marry our sisters and daughters. Who is being served by that?

I don't think it will sink in for the hardcore anti-gays--who will just say this guy lacked the morality or willpower to stick by the straight path he was attempting--but perhaps it will occur to some level-headed straight people in the middle.

Especially if they read the transcript. It's heartbreaking. And brief enough to read in about a minute and a half.

This part really chocked me up:

Yet, from my early days in school, until the present day, I acknowledged some feelings, a certain sense that separated me from others. But because of my resolve, and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself . . .

I do not believe that God tortures any person simply for its own sake. I believe that God enables all things to work for the greater good. And this, the 47th year of my life, is arguably too late to have this discussion. But it is here, and it is now.

At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is.

And so my truth is that I am a gay American.


             Comment                                         4:34:01 PM                                           trackback []        



Sunday, June 06, 2004


Good job timing the gay marriages during a war

I whined quite a bit last summer that it was too early, way too dangerously early to be plunging ahead into gay marriage. We had not sufficiently prepared the public, I had convinced myself.

Wrong, wrong, looks like I was dead wrong, as I have admitted here repeatedly since. But I really wasn't prepared for the big yawn out of Massacheusetts last month. No one seems to even be noticing.

I wonder how much it is the war. Quite a bit, I think. Nothing like a good national crisis to put priorities in place. Too much idle time on our hands can be a bad thing, right? Just gives all those straight people time to sit around fretting what gay marriage might do to them.

(Not to mention both discrediting the champions of the opposition, and forcing them to drop the stupid battle to take on something really imporant, like their appalling mismanagement of the war.)

And the one-two punch of a war on the heals of a troubled economy, all the better. The big question now is which will matter more in November--can the economy push the war back off center stage? I doubt it, personally, but either way, gay marriage just seem too trivial for most people to spend their time on today. Frank Rich in today's column:

But Massachusetts's wedding day proved to be the show dog that didn't bark. Americans merely shrugged, confirming polls both before and after that fateful day: voters rate same-sex marriage dead last in importance among issues in an election year dominated by a runaway real war.

(The column is hysterical, as usual, by the way, in a good way, of course.)

But I also think the San Francisco marriages helped. Get people used to it gradually. That just happened so suddenly, and as Joan Walsh wrote at the time, suddenly it seemed so inevitable: there's really no turning back after that. So those marriages may not end up standing up in the courts, but the couples have done their work for the rest of us. They pushed us all right past the what-if stage. What if men and men and women and women got married to each other, not just in their own private ceremonies, but legally, with bone fide marriage certificates issued by the actual government? Nothing, apparently. The sky didn't fall.

So when it happened again in Massacheusetts? What straight person was even going to be interested enough to watch that rerun. You can only get excited about it so many times. And the first time you see gay people kiss can be shocking--I still remember witnessing my first; I was still a straight guy, and I wasn't so much shocked as disgusted. But I got over it pretty fast. Even with all my internalized homophobia over my own situation simmering just under the surface.

Most straight people prolly weren't dialing up Nightline that night specifically to learn what was up with the homos, but if they happened to have the tube tuned to that channel they may well have sat there and watched. Or they can across the images elsewhere and will again in the future. No avoiding them, really.

Apparently I was just being a big chicken. Maybe the public was ready.

But it sure helps to have the war going on.


             Comment                                         11:55:54 AM                                           trackback []